Sure, unlike us, an arahant has no need to make an effort to maintain precepts:

An arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

mikenz66 wrote:Sure, unlike us, an arahant has no need to make an effort to maintain precepts:

An arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Mike

Is the Pāli for "to consume stored-up sensual things, as he did before, when he was a householder," sannidhikārake kāme paribhuñjituṃ, seyyathāpi pubbe agāriyabhūto?

Relevant qualifications aren't deduced from comparing my opinion to other opinions but in interpreting the "total" effect of all relevant opinions, of which mine is one.

Cittasanto wrote:or references showing how you came to such a conclusion.

I've posted several references here, and to post all the ones availible is not practical.

Regarding my reasons:

To sum up: there is no 'scientific world-view', just as there is no uniform enterprise 'science'--except in the minds of metaphysicians, schoolmasters and politicians trying to make their nation competitive. Still, there are many things we can learn from the sciences. But we can also learn from the humanities, religion and from the remnants of ancient traditions that survived the onslaught of Western Civilization. No area is unified and perfect, few areas are repulsive and completely without merit. There is no objective principle that could direct us away from the supermarket 'religion' or the supermarket 'art' towards the more modern, and much more expensive supermarket 'science'. Besides, there are large areas of knowledge and action in which we use procedures without any idea as to their comparative excellence. An example is medicine, which, though not a science, has increasingly been connected with scientific research. There are many fashions and schools in medicine just as there are many fashions and schools in psychology. It follows, first, that the idea of a comparison of 'Western medicine' with other medical procedures does not make sense. Secondly, such a comparison is often against the law, even if their should be volunteers: a test is legally impossible. Adding to this that health and sickness are culture-dependent concepts, we see that there are domains, such as medicine with no scientific answer to question 2 (What's so great about science?). This is not really a drawback. The search for objective guidance is in conflict with the idea of individual responsibility which allegedly is an important ingredient of a 'rational' or scientific age. It shows fear, indecision, a yearning for authority and a disregard for the new opportunities that now exist: we can build world-views on the basis of personal choice and thus unite for ourselves and for our friends, what was once separated by a series of historical accidents (Footonote 22. Woflgang Pauli, who was deeply concerned about the intellectual situation fo the time, demanded that science and religion again be united: letter to M. Fierz, 8 August 1948. I agree but would add, entirely in the spirit of Pauli, that the unification should be a personal matter; it should not be prepared by philosophical-scientific alchemists of the mind and imposed by their minions in education....).

zolek wrote:I've just wondering if people working for a legal marijuana dispensary have violated the 5th precept ? What makes it different from selling alcohol is that alcohol is clearly intoxicants, while in this case it's for medical uses only. What do you think ?

How can something be violated? Acts just have an outcome. Selling intoxicants has impact on the seller. Consuming intoxicants has impact on the consumer. No violation.

But - when thoughts come into game, things get more complicated. You start to think about if it is wrong or right, if it violates something or not. Remorse comes up, restlessness or other hindrances arise.

What always arises, if one consumes intoxicants, is doubt about the rightness of the Dhamma. Plus it makes it easier for all the other hindrances to come up, because it creates the ground for "breaking" other precepts. Be aware of that, when you have to take intoxicants as medication.

So, if one sells intoxicants, for what ever reason, then this person supports the other person to create a non-clear kind of mind, that leads away from Dhamma.

Regards (-:

"An important term for meditative absorption is samadhi. We often translate that as concentration, but that can suggest a certain stiffness. Perhaps unification is a better rendition, as samadhi means to bring together. Deep samadhi isn't at all stiff. It's a process of letting go of other things and coming to a unified experience." - Bhikkhu Anālayo

Relevant qualifications aren't deduced from comparing my opinion to other opinions but in interpreting the "total" effect of all relevant opinions, of which mine is one.

I mean facts or data from repeatable experiments not opinion.as an example it is a fact that the earth is oval(ish), but for most people the evidence is not so obvious on an experiantial level, so we still have people who believe the earth is flat.

Cittasanto wrote:or references showing how you came to such a conclusion.

I've posted several references here, and to post all the ones availible is not practical. I know.it was more an agreement than a dig

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

I'd like to offer a personal opinion regarding this. Marijuana CAN be medicine, just like Morphine CAN be medicine. Both can also be intoxicants. It's all about the intent of one's usage. If you are using Morphine to treat severe pain, and not using it to get high, then it is not a violation of the 5th. precept. If, OTOH, you are using it to get high, you are using it as an intoxicant and it most assuredly is a violation of the 5th. precept. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point.

In a similar light, if Marijuana is being used to treat a medical condition and not to get high, then you're not in violation. If you're using it to get high, you're in violation of the 5th. precept. I don't see what can be more clear.

It's all about INTENT.

Now, anyone who has used Marijuana and hasn't gotten intoxicated, I respectfully submit to that person that you have not been smoking very high quality bud

I have some small experience in this matter. In fact, I have quit using Marijuana because of the 5th. precept. Again, please note, I was using it to get high, not to treat a medical condition, though I technically was able to obtain it semi-legally (I say semi-legally because no where in the United States with a VERY few exceptions, is Marijuana legal under FEDERAL law.) I do know some people who use Marijuana to treat legitimate medical conditions and a subset of this group is VERY careful about using only enough to treat their condition and not to get high. I'm confident enough in the way they use it to say that if they were Buddhists (they are not) that they would not be in violation of the 5th. precept.

I do know that the human capacity to fool oneself is nearly infinite, so I could lie to myself and say that Marijuana doesn't get me high, I only used it to treat social anxiety, help me sleep and relieve the general aches and pains that most 52 year old's generally experience out of having lived for 52 years! But I would be lying to myself. I used Marijuana to get high. That's why I quit. I do not want to violate the 5th precept. Now, was this easy? Actually, it wasn't hard at all for me to quit because the improvement in my meditation has been absolutely remarkable. I can't speak for anyone else, but Marijuana "messes" with my meditation because it gave me a false sense that I was actually improving in my meditation in a way that I wasn't, naturally. I did experience some mild withdrawals, but nothing that serious. Probably somewhere between quitting coffee and quitting cigarettes. CERTAINLY not to the level of quitting opiates.

Now, to the OP's original question. Having frequented a fair number of SoCal's finest dispensaries, in San Diego, Orange and LA counties, I can count on one hand, nay, one FINGER, the number of shops that were oriented toward the truly ill and not simply fun places to buy pot to get high.

Everyone has to make their own decisions on these things, but I think that anyone who is foolish enough to claim that Marijuana isn't an intoxicant is either smoking really low-grade weed...or is fooling themselves.

Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinatiThe flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

Clearly if selling marijuana to those in the limited cases where it is the most effective medication for pain relief and other symptoms, then it is also against the Dhamma to sell chemotherapy medications because they are poisons.

There is no such thing as medical marijuana sellers that only sell to severely ill people with one of the few illnesses helped by marijuana, so its kind of a mute point. For instance you can easily get a medical marijuana permit to buy pot to "help" psychotic type illnesses, something study after study has shown has just the opposite effect; it makes you sicker.

18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John